Pro-Gay Groups: Offer Your Own Amendment

[TexasTiger 12,974]

This thing in Alabama just went 81-19% For the Banning Amendment. Tex, 70% could actually be a LOW figure in some instances.

Titan hit it out of the Park. I dont see the ususal suspects pushing this one, at least not like you would think. The FF&C Clause actually works against them because it only works for Judicial Actions, not public Policy. This seems to be the real case with the Lawsuits. Create a hundred lawsuits and hope like heck that some screaming whacko Lib judge tries to Legislate from the bench. I guess when you know that 70%+ of the public openly OPPOSE your ideas that is the only way you can shove it down their throats.

When the Libs finaly learn to quit telling the American People how stupid they are, maybe then they will begin to start winning elections again. Like that will EVER happen...

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/26/State/Sa...riage_law.shtml

The lawsuit bases some of its arguments on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dates to the days when a young nation was reconciling the laws of the colonies. The clause says states should honor the public acts of other states.

Because Massachusetts legally sanctions same-sex marriages, "all the other states should be constitutionally required to uphold the validity of the marriage," the lawsuit states.

It's not that simple, legal experts say.

Historically, the full faith and credit clause has applied to judicial decisions, not legislation, said Koppelman, the Northwestern law professor. A Florida resident, say, loses a lawsuit and has to pay $1-million. Even if that person flees Florida, the full faith and credit clause makes that $1-million judgment enforceable anywhere in the country.

The federal courts have also made it clear that states do not have to acquiesce to everything another state might do. States can follow their own laws when it comes to public policy.

States do generally honor the marriage laws of other states. Florida, for instance, sets a minimum marriage age of 16, and then only with a parent's consent. But a 14-year-old Florida boy could travel to Massachusetts, which allows 14-year-olds to marry, and get hitched. Florida would likely recognize that marriage.

But think of that as a courtesy, legal experts say, not something the U.S. Constitution compels the states to do.

"A state need not recognize a marriage that violates its own public policy," said Cass Sunstein, a law and political science professor at the University of Chicago. "There has long been a public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause."

The lawsuit also claims that the federal and state defense of marriage acts violate Schoenwether and Wilson's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and the implicit right to privacy.

Sunstein acknowledges federal courts could say that just as discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable, so is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It's not unimaginable sometime in the future," he said. "However, it would be very surprising if federal judges declare this to be the law of the land any time soon."

The federal judiciary is wary of radically renovating standing laws, especially ones with broad public policy implications, he said. The judicial decisions concerning gay marriage have come from a small number of state judges interpreting state laws, not federal laws.

Koppelman agreed federal judges don't ordinarily get out in front of public opinion. Most polls show that about two of three Americans oppose same-sex marriages. Many more states will have to follow Massachusetts' lead, Koppelman said, before the federal courts address the issue head on.

"There would have to be a big change in American culture," he said.

Sunstein uses the evolution of interracial marriage laws as an example. The Supreme Court banned laws against interracial marriage in 1967. But by that time only a group of Southern states still enforced laws against interracial marriage.

239227[/snapback]

Your article makes the case that the amendment is not necessary and is, thus, pure political theatre for the base. As I said before, Dumb and Dumber. Bush is dumb, but his base is even dumber to get all worked up over what is an unnecessary action.

[Tiger Al 0]

My 2 cents: The proposed amendment is titled 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Saying gays being allowed to marry will threaten or assault 'traditional' marriage is political demagoguery at its finest. The underlying question behind this push is whether you believe gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. If these nitwits who are forcing this issue down the throats of Americans were the least bit concerned with what threatens marriage or families or children or 'Christian' values, they'd be pushing to make divorce illegal. They'd be pushing to make adultery a class A felony. Sadly, delving into the history of some of this amendment's supporters shows why that'll never happen. That would mean pointing the finger at their own and actually addressing the threat. It also wouldn't whip up the base into a feeding frenzy. The 'Marriage Protection Amendment' is nothing more than chum.

[Aubie16 1]

My 2 cents: The proposed amendment is titled 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Saying gays being allowed to marry will threaten or assault 'traditional' marriage is political demagoguery at its finest. The underlying question behind this push is whether you believe gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. If these nitwits who are forcing this issue down the throats of Americans were the least bit concerned with what threatens marriage or families or children or 'Christian' values, they'd be pushing to make divorce illegal. They'd be pushing to make adultery a class A felony. Sadly, delving into the history of some of this amendment's supporters shows why that'll never happen. That would mean pointing the finger at their own and actually addressing the threat. It also wouldn't whip up the base into a feeding frenzy. The 'Marriage Protection Amendment' is nothing more than chum.

239810[/snapback]

[DKW 86 7,437]

My 2 cents: The proposed amendment is titled 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Saying gays being allowed to marry will threaten or assault 'traditional' marriage is political demagoguery at its finest. The underlying question behind this push is whether you believe gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. If these nitwits who are forcing this issue down the throats of Americans were the least bit concerned with what threatens marriage or families or children or 'Christian' values, they'd be pushing to make divorce illegal. They'd be pushing to make adultery a class A felony. Sadly, delving into the history of some of this amendment's supporters shows why that'll never happen. That would mean pointing the finger at their own and actually addressing the threat. It also wouldn't whip up the base into a feeding frenzy. The 'Marriage Protection Amendment' is nothing more than chum.

239810[/snapback]

Tiger Al....Welcome back Home!

[Tigermike 3,046]

My 2 cents: The proposed amendment is titled 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Saying gays being allowed to marry will threaten or assault 'traditional' marriage is political demagoguery at its finest. The underlying question behind this push is whether you believe gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. If these nitwits who are forcing this issue down the throats of Americans were the least bit concerned with what threatens marriage or families or children or 'Christian' values, they'd be pushing to make divorce illegal. They'd be pushing to make adultery a class A felony. Sadly, delving into the history of some of this amendment's supporters shows why that'll never happen. That would mean pointing the finger at their own and actually addressing the threat. It also wouldn't whip up the base into a feeding frenzy. The 'Marriage Protection Amendment' is nothing more than chum.

239810[/snapback]

First of all, welcome back Al.

Since divorce rates have leveled off and even declined slightly over the past 10 - 15 years, it could be that divorce lawyers are the ones pushing for gay marriage. Stands to reason, the more marriages, the more divorces.

[Tiger Al 0]

My 2 cents: The proposed amendment is titled 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Saying gays being allowed to marry will threaten or assault 'traditional' marriage is political demagoguery at its finest. The underlying question behind this push is whether you believe gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. If these nitwits who are forcing this issue down the throats of Americans were the least bit concerned with what threatens marriage or families or children or 'Christian' values, they'd be pushing to make divorce illegal. They'd be pushing to make adultery a class A felony. Sadly, delving into the history of some of this amendment's supporters shows why that'll never happen. That would mean pointing the finger at their own and actually addressing the threat. It also wouldn't whip up the base into a feeding frenzy. The 'Marriage Protection Amendment' is nothing more than chum.

239810[/snapback]

First of all, welcome back Al.

Since divorce rates have leveled off and even declined slightly over the past 10 - 15 years, it could be that divorce lawyers are the ones pushing for gay marriage. Stands to reason, the more marriages, the more divorces.

239855[/snapback]

Thanks, TM.

[channonc 466]

Wow! TA!! I thought you had fallen off the planet! Welcome back!

As for the gay marriage issue, I am still trying to figure out how 2 men or 2 women marrying affects anyone else's marriage.

[DKW 86 7,437]

Wow!  TA!!  I thought you had fallen off the planet!  Welcome back!

As for the gay marriage issue, I am still trying to figure out how 2 men or 2 women marrying affects anyone else's marriage.

239969[/snapback]

Channonc, I dont think it does affects anyone. For years gays have been able to utilize the contract/Civil Union laws anyway. Now there is some push to force the MARRIAGE issue. Now I think that marriage is indeed a sacred thing. I am also divorced and understand that there are millions of divorced Christians in this country too. I also understand that there are un-Christian, or unbelievers, and just outright trash getting married with total disregard for the holiness of it. I can plainly see why many just dont get why so many are getting this upset about it.

I and many Christians think marriage is a convenant given by God and should be held in high respect. However, I can also see why many thnk it s no big deal.

Channonc, I think my personal thinking in this is a question just like yours. If Civil Unions etc, have been good enough for so long why infuriate a bunch of folks by trying to force this issue down their throats? What is this really all about? Why now is it so important? And why does the gay community seem so casually interested in this and so many others so excited? If it is that important then it should be handled by legislation, not by a radical court's order.

The truth is my friend, is that there is political capital in this issue for both sides and we are just being played for fools. We have far more important topics to wonder about and this is just a "turn the voters out issue" that also distracts the country from far more important topics.

[channonc 466]

Well, for me, hearing from a few gay committed couples that I know (ones that have been together for 15-20 years), their biggest concerns are hospital visitation with their partners, spousal privilige (recognized by the courts), and rights to their children. These are issues that are not resolved by "civil unions" but only by a state recognized "marriage."

David, I agree with you in priciple that there are extreme groups out there, definately trying to make this "non-issue" an election issue. Taking the extremists out of the equation... with the senario I just put forth, would you be willing to give these rights to couples that enter into a state recognized "civil union?"

[Tiger Al 0]

Channonc, I dont think it does affects anyone. For years gays have been able to utilize the contract/Civil Union laws anyway. Now there is some push to force the MARRIAGE issue. Now I think that marriage is indeed a sacred thing. I am also divorced and understand that there are millions of divorced Christians in this country too. I also understand that there are un-Christian, or unbelievers, and just outright trash getting married with total disregard for the holiness of it. I can plainly see why many just dont get why so many are getting this upset about it.

I and many Christians think marriage is a convenant given by God and should be held in high respect. However, I can also see why many thnk it s no big deal.

Channonc, I think my personal thinking in this is a question just like yours. If Civil Unions etc, have been good enough for so long why infuriate a bunch of folks by trying to force this issue down their throats? What is this really all about? Why now is it so important?  And why does the gay community seem so casually interested in this and so many others so excited? If it is that important then it should be handled by legislation, not by a radical court's order.

The truth is my friend, is that there is political capital in this issue for both sides and we are just being played for fools. We have far more important topics to wonder about and this is just a "turn the voters out issue" that also distracts the country from far more important topics.

239977[/snapback]

Then why do you support this attempt by government to dictate what is or is not a religious doctrine?

[DKW 86 7,437]

Channon and Al: Make the CUs have the same basic rights as those of Marriages. I would even support the idea of making CUs the equivalent of married in rights but leave the term married in its religious context. Maybe seperate the terms on a Secular-CU/Religious-Married basis. By doing that, marriages become releigious event and the churches then rule the definition of marriage. I fully realize though that some church somewhere will marry a gay couple and then the fire works are defused because it is not America, nor the state, nor even a particular denomination, but that church itself as recognizing the "marriage."

Maybe that wont work out but it keeps the govt out of the bedrooms longer.

What does the law say on transexuals getting married? What is the technical definition of a man and woman? Can they change after a sex reassignment surgery? Could all of this have been made moot by a marriage that has been recognized by law for years? What happens if there is a sex reassignment AFTER the marriage?

This could get ugly very quickly.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Leave it the way it is and let the homos be the abomination that they are. To legitimize it in any way creates an illusion of acceptance. And I refuse to accept it as normal behavior. Notice I did not call for extermination or hanging or any of that, just do not legitmize it. Just because a small group of society screams loud, does not mean I have to listen. And guess what, there is a hell of a lot of us out here. We will not persecute, but we will not be forced to accept it. And there are many who feel its just as important an issue as the ones you are thinking of. That is why America is America. You vote your way, I vote mine.

Oh, BTW, I am also a white supremist, racist , bigot, woman-hating, republican. Saved you all the comments. <insert sarcasm emoticon here>

[Tiger Al 0]

Channon and Al: Make the CUs have the same basic rights as those of Marriages. I would even support the idea of making CUs the equivalent of married in rights but leave the term married in its religious context. Maybe seperate the terms on a Secular-CU/Religious-Married basis. By doing that, marriages become releigious event and the churches then rule the definition of marriage. I fully realize though that some church somewhere will marry a gay couple and then the fire works are defused because it is not America, nor the state, nor even a particular denomination, but that church itself as recognizing the "marriage."

Maybe that wont work out but it keeps the govt out of the bedrooms longer.

What does the law say on transexuals getting married? What is the technical definition of a man and woman? Can they change after a sex reassignment surgery? Could all of this have been made moot by a marriage that has been recognized by law for years? What happens if there is a sex reassignment AFTER the marriage?

This could get ugly very quickly.

240019[/snapback]

Did you vote last Tuesday and, if so, did you vote 'yes' or 'no' on the gay marriage amendment?

[DKW 86 7,437]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

[Tiger Al 0]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

240027[/snapback]

You say you believe marriage is a religious institution, a covenant with God. Why are you willing to allow the government to dictate how a religious entity can pronounce how that covenant is manifested?

[DKW 86 7,437]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

240027[/snapback]

You say you believe marriage is a religious institution, a covenant with God. Why are you willing to allow the government to dictate how a religious entity can pronounce how that covenant is manifested?

240029[/snapback]

I am just as worried about someone else, anyone else, dictating policy.

[Tiger Al 0]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

240027[/snapback]

You say you believe marriage is a religious institution, a covenant with God. Why are you willing to allow the government to dictate how a religious entity can pronounce how that covenant is manifested?

240029[/snapback]

I am just as worried about someone else, anyone else, dictating policy.

240031[/snapback]

Then why did you 1) fail to vote on the amendment and 2) say that HAD you voted, you would gladly give the government the authority to diminish the First Amendment and dictate to religions what is or is not a marriage, a covenant with God?

[Captain Liger 0]

Leave it the way it is and let the homos be the abomination that they are. To legitimize it in any way creates an illusion of acceptance. And I refuse to accept it as normal behavior. Notice I did not call for extermination or hanging or any of that, just do not legitmize it. Just because a small group of society screams loud, does not mean I have to listen. And guess what, there is a hell of a lot of us out here. We will not persecute, but we will not be forced to accept it. And there are many who feel its just as important an issue as the ones you are thinking of. That is why America is America. You vote your way, I vote mine.

Oh,  BTW, I am also a white supremist, racist , bigot, woman-hating, republican. Saved you all the comments. <insert sarcasm emoticon here>

240023[/snapback]

Well said. I'm with you.

Homos are going to burn in hell for eternity so let them have their way and enjoy it while they can. It's their choice to be fudge packers. They will suffer the consequences in the afterlife.

[DKW 86 7,437]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

240027[/snapback]

You say you believe marriage is a religious institution, a covenant with God. Why are you willing to allow the government to dictate how a religious entity can pronounce how that covenant is manifested?

240029[/snapback]

I am just as worried about someone else, anyone else, dictating policy.

240031[/snapback]

Then why did you 1) fail to vote on the amendment and 2) say that HAD you voted, you would gladly give the government the authority to diminish the First Amendment and dictate to religions what is or is not a marriage, a covenant with God?

240037[/snapback]

Because, if forced to choose between two evils I would choose the lesser, as would most anyone. The govt imposing a value is not quite as bad as having just anyone and everyone imposing their believes.

Why is the Left circumventing the Free Speech'legisaltive process on this one and trying to do an end run around the Constitution?

[Tiger Al 0]

Nope, I did not vote last Tuesday. I would have voted for the ban, but like I said, what I reeally think SHOULD happen wont even be talked about.

240027[/snapback]

You say you believe marriage is a religious institution, a covenant with God. Why are you willing to allow the government to dictate how a religious entity can pronounce how that covenant is manifested?

240029[/snapback]

I am just as worried about someone else, anyone else, dictating policy.

240031[/snapback]

Then why did you 1) fail to vote on the amendment and 2) say that HAD you voted, you would gladly give the government the authority to diminish the First Amendment and dictate to religions what is or is not a marriage, a covenant with God?

240037[/snapback]

Because, if forced to choose between two evils I would choose the lesser, as would most anyone. The govt imposing a value is not quite as bad as having just anyone and everyone imposing their believes.

240049[/snapback]

This seems a bit short-sighted if you're at all concerned about the government being in the churching business. Everyone seems to think that a theocracy in America would be great because, assumedly, the government would be enforcing their particular 'brand' of religion. What if it wasn't? Should you and your family be forced to abide by the Catholic church's beliefs on marriage? Prayer? Why not? If Congress suddenly found itself with a majority of Catholics and they passed (religious) legislation that was the embodiment of Catholic beliefs concerning, say, marriage after divorce, why should your present marriage be viewed legally as adulterous because you've been married before? Are those your personal religious beliefs? You may say, 'Who cares?', but I'd bet you'd soon care if every financial benefit you counted on by being married were negated as a result of that legislation. No tax deductions. No second IRA in the wife's name. You'd better not die, because your 'ex-wife' actually controls your estate. You're now a criminal because you're a bigamist. Two 'divorces?' You're a polygamist.

Why is the Left circumventing the Free Speech'legisaltive process on this one and trying to do an end run around the Constitution?

Assume the situation I described above actually happened. Do you just wait around until the other Protestants can move the Catholics out of Congress so the law can be changed? Wouldn't it seem kind of un-Constitutional for that law to be passed, much less enforced?

If an 'end run' around the Constitution is being executed, as you say, then why was there a push to AMEND the Constitution? If it already forbids gays from marrying then why the need to amend it to forbid gays from marrying?

[DKW 86 7,437]

At least the Ban folks are using the Constituionally approved system.

1) It will never pass and get ratified.

2) It is a political smoke screen.

3) If it is that important, why doesnt the Left use the regular Legislative system?

The suppositions are not that valid because as we have talked about before, this stuff is pure "get out the vote" Just like the Estate Tax stuff from the Left is pure "get out the vote"